Question

英文全文翻译，跪求，急急急，在线等

What amounts to arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination, disguised restriction is
still open to question. Moreover, the language of Principle 2 with the use of ‘should’,not ‘shall’ is quite discretionary. Despite this ambiguity, these words in GATT Article XX preamble were still used by other agreements such as Article 36 of the Treaty Establishing the European Economic Community. One conclusion may be drawn here is that the border line between protection and protectionism is quite vague, which leads to the difficulty in monitoring them as well as settling disputes. As Clinton Administration's environmental review of NAFTA correctly points out ‘the choice of the appropriate level of protection is a social value judgment. There is no requirement for a scientific basis for the level of protection because it is not a scientific judgment’. When there is no concrete scientific evidence on these problems, every country will have different points of view and these controversial issues may lead to disputes and even trade wars, which can dramatically affect both sides' interests.

Answer 1

相当于任意的或不合理的歧视，变相限制仍有待商榷。此外,原则2的语言在使用“应该”而非“应当”时显得相当自由。尽管如此模棱两可，这些话在关贸总协定XX条序言仍被其他协议使用，如第三十六条建立欧洲经济共同体条约。从中可能得出的一个结论是,保护和保护主义之间的边界线是相当模糊的，这将导致在监视他们以及解决争端中的困难。北美自由贸易协定的克林顿政府的环境评估正确地指出“选择适当的保护水平是一个社会价值判断。没有要求科学依据级别的保护，因为它并不是一个科学的判断”。如果没有具体的科学证据应用在这些问题上,每个国家都有不同的观点，且这些有争议的问题可能会导致纠纷甚至贸易战,这将极大地影响双方的利益。
时间仓促没有仔细修改，提交后我再看看

Answer 2

这么长！